On Nov 26, 12:08 pm, "Martin Rowley"
wrote:

... actually, his '80%' refers to the track / areas affected. The
actual forecast (both that put out in the press presentation and on
the detailed forecast that I was lucky (!) enough to see, carries NO
probability marking; it implies that the event WILL happen!

Am I the only one here that seeks the reasoning behind his forecasts?
From his site:

"The original central highest risk period for dangerous events
23rd-28th November is now extended to 1st/2nd December.
This is a 'superstorm' period in English & US usage of the word
meaning it is likley to include in the most exposed parts of main
storm tracks winds gusting to over 160kph (100mph) - i.e. resulting
from hurricane force winds of Beaufort force 12 average wind speed.

At the time of writing, deep low pressures are developing over the
Atlantic and short range standard forecasts show 'dartboard' lows,
i.e. exceptionally deep lows of e.g. 955mb. This puts the potential
storms on a par with the most damaging storms of 1990 and 1987 in the
UK and Western Europe."

http://www.lowefo.com/forecast.php?s=Netherlands

It is a truth that with very "positive" North Atlantic sequences, very
deep lows occur and they tend to move laterally to the West Coast of
Europe and are very likely to hit Britain.

(Negative anomalies tend to go north at Greenland and even avoid
Norway.)

However I can't reconcile tornadic periods with strong winds except in
the vortices themselves.

As it happens I too see there are reasons to forecast tornadic
activity -either that or derechos (I'm not sure that's how to spell
that phenomenon, I'm not even certain I mean that sort of event
either.)

But here is an odd thing: The tornadic spell we should be getting due
to the lunar phase -which incidentally, runs over the same time
period; is subverted by hurricanes in the North West (Asian) Pacific.

This piece is revealing:

"Predicted solar effects make the present period one of rapid and
accelerating weather change for the whole of the north Atlantic region
from Greenland to St Petersburg and from North Norway to Belgium."

First off he is stating he uses the solar behaviour to forecast the
weather. Nothing new there but it is nice to have it writing. So long
as it unequivocal truth. He has every right to hide his methods but
not to tell lies.

Periods "of rapid and accelerating weather change" are not tornadic
spells. The background to those are settled, calm, humid periods but
of course marked striations show that things are somewhat different in
the upper air.

He has though, got the last bit right hasn't he? Between Iceland and
Greenland, the pressure changes some 46 millibars in 20 degrees
longitude, on one of these sea level charts:

http://www.westwind.ch/?link=ukmb,ht...racknell+13 2

On the other hand such a situation is normal for this side of the
North Atlantic at this time of year.

Not all that much to go on. Pity Mike Tullet hasn't got an impartial
attitude. He might be clever but if his bent is only to deride the
man, he shows a stupid lack of insight.